Peer Reviewed studies base on the manipulated data of East Anglia university and reviewed by those manipulating the data. Garbag in, Garbage out
I am somehat surpirsed that anyone is still using peer reviewed sytdies as proof since it was shown in the leaked emails that there was a concentrated affort to deny publication of to any study that did not follow the company line.
It also showed that while they may have wished some studies (by deceitful scientists getting fossil fuel bucks) not to be published, they did not have control, and did not act to pursue that wish. I also wish people would stop fussing and just start mitigating AGW, but am powerless to make them – it’s been like me banging my head against a brick wall for 20 years, trying to tell people about AGW and inspire them to mitigate. If they had started doing so 20 years ago the harms in the pipes wouldn’t be so terrible, but even now we can reduce harm, we can make life more bearable for our progeny.
The place to dispute science is in peer-reviewed articles. That is the way science is done, not on blogs or books. Scientists don’t just say something is wrong, they have to go out and do extensive studies, and prove it is wrong. It is highly competitive to get published in such journals (I know from experience in my own social science field). The reason you don’t see many articles skeptical of AGW being published, is because such articles would not pass scientific scrutiny. However, occasionally some skeptical articles do get published, which keeps other scientists on their toes and may lead them to either accept that new finding/theory, or find flaws, do their own study and get their articles published. One needs to follow the cutting edge science in top tier journals and consider the most recent studies and the bulk of the studies, not just one or two that supports one’s preconceived ideas or various policy implications. We need fact-driven policy, not policy-driven “facts.”
Scientists don’t get paid for publishing in such journals. They don’t even get paid for their research beyond their regular salaries. The grants they get only pay part or all of their salaries they would have gotten anyway, and for the equipment and research expenses. No one is getting rich doing science. I know. I’ve gotten grants. But the denialists are making a bundle from publishing sensationalized and misleading books, and some are getting big bucks from the fossil fuel industry, as well.
I guess if people listen to lies enough from those deceivers, they might start believing them. The CRU scientists have been vindicated. All they did a bit wrong was not be as forthcoming with requests for data, as they could have been – assuming they would have had more time and help to comply with the myriad of FOI requests being thrown at them from all directions, many made by people just trying to harass them. Total vindication in their science and methods.
Furthermore, there are hundreds of working scientists aside from the CRU scientists who have been studying AGW for years and decades, and have come of with their own findings supporting AGW. For instance, biologists, like Dr. Camile Parmesan, have found animals laying eggs and giving birth earlier, and plants flowering earlier. There is the stalagmite/stalactite proxy data and the ocean’s foraminifera fossil data that all support global warming and teach us about past warmings and coolings. There is the undisputed physic behind the natural greenhouse effect. The evidence is quite robust, even if one were to delete the CRU works.
Some don’t like the message, so they mock, belittle, slander, harass, silence, and threaten the messengers (some actually need police protection, and I think it’s a strong possibility that someone will actually kill some scientist sometime, some “crusader” who thinks he’s doing right). The climate scientists are the true heroes of our day, not buckling to those evil and vicious attacks on the one side, and to the offers of mega-bucks from the fossil fuel industry (esp Exxon and Koch Industries, but also from coal and other oil companies) on the other side.
The mocking of Al Gore is completely inexcusable and vicious, totally unChristian. His message was that life is more important than economics.
As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Which includes following prudence and precaution in dealing with others’ lives (meaning we’ve been mitigating since 1990). I didn’t even need 95% confidence back then that AGW is happening and is dangerous (the reticent scientific standard), and neither did JPII back in 1990 when he said it was everyone’s responsibility to mitigate (see
here). That statement has never been retracted by the Catholic Church, no matter how many devils are working their tails off to get it to do so. It stands.
And even if JPII had not made that statement or BXVI and others in the Vatican had not made theirs, the Bible commandment “Thou shalt not kill” is command enough to mitigate AGW.
That AGW is killing people and God’s creation, and will be doing so with much more harm in the future is admittedly a very very tough message to swallow; it says we are killing people. But there is redemption in the blood of Christ. Making up is so sweet. I invite all to join me on this wholesome path of mitigating AGW. You will find that the yoke is easy and the burden is light. And also that you are not only mitigating AGW, but many other problems, as well. You will be happier and richer for it, I promise.
So long, and may God be with you.
